Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group

243 A.D.2d 673, 664 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10739

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 27, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), entered September 24, 1996, as denied those branches of their motion which were to compel the defendants to accept the response to Item 3 of the CPLR 3101 (d) expert disclosure demand and for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) requires a party to disclose, among other information, “the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify”. The conclusory statement in the plaintiffs’ supplemental response to Item 3 of the defendants’ demand for expert information failed to satisfy the statutory requirement (see, Chapman v State of New York, 189 AD2d 1075; Brossoit v O’Brien, 169 AD2d 1019). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiffs to provide a further response. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), entered September 24, 1996, as denied those branches of their motion which were to compel the defendants to accept the response to Item 3 of the CPLR 3101 (d) expert disclosure demand and for a protective order.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) requires a party to disclose, among other information, “the substance of the facts and opinions on which each expert is expected to testify”. The conclusory statement in the plaintiffs’ supplemental response to Item 3 of the defendants’ demand for expert information failed to satisfy the statutory requirement (see, Chapman v State of New York, 189 AD2d 1075; Brossoit v O’Brien, 169 AD2d 1019). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly directed the plaintiffs to provide a further response. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group, 243 A.D.2d 673, 664 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

243 A.D.2d 673 (Curatola v. Staten Island Medical Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related